Eddie Jones - England's New Coach

First topic message reminder :

So the worst kept secret is out...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/12005671/Eddie-Jones-to-be-confirmed-as-England-head-coach-in-next-24-hours.html

Jury's out on this one, will have to see how the 6Ns goes then ponder his selection.

For a first game in charge, the list of ticks on the to do list is quite long:
1) Scrum fixed. Check
2) Lineout fixed. Check
3) Breakdown strategy worked as required. Check
4) Driving maul fixed. Check
5) Defensive system worked. Check, but with more to do. Scotland helped a lot with the mistakes they made
6) Tries scored. Check. One from forward power, one from a fairly nifty move including forwards and backs
7) Substitutions effective. Check
8) Game won. Check. And more importantly, England looked in control despite Scotland having and apparent edge in territory and possession.

Given the limited time he's had, that's a solid start. To do list for Italy:

Must do
Win
Exert control rather than grind out the win
Maintain strong setpiece
Maintain defensive organisation
Improve discipline
Find more fluidity among the half backs, regardless of combination

Should do
Show tactical flexibility in adapting gameplan to suit Italy
Secure a good winning margin (though less critical following the draw on Sunday)
Give more gametime to less experienced players. My priorities would be George and Clifford
Bring the back three into the game
Score more tries

Poorfour

Kind of agree with your 8 points listed, although I do think there is more work to do at the breakdown. Now, of course there is also the question of how much the ref's interpretation impacted our performance there - certainly there were a few odd decisions (the penalty against Cole for taking out the player binding to the side of the ruck being one), and it seemed that Mr Lacey was hotter on policing holding on by the ball carrier than on tacklers not allowing fair release... (although at least he was pretty even-handed).

I think the performance lacked fluency, and we still have several of the limitations that were evident in Lancaster's reign:
Lack of carriers in the pack, meaning an over-reliance on Billy V
Balance of the flankers. For me, Robshaw and Haskell as a pair are just too slow, and don't make up for this with absurd power as ball carriers.
Selection at 10/12 - Farrell is not a 12, and playing him there is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Your point about discipline is well made - We do as a team seem to give away more than our fair share of penalties, some of which are just dumb (Farrell's shove on Laidlaw being a prime example).

"Give more gametime to less experienced players. My priorities would be George and Clifford"

Maybe but only if England is comfortably ahead. The whole starting pack went pretty well. When Ws are a 'must' tinkering too much is dangerous if not necessary.

The 10/12 axis just needs to calm down a bit and not be too panicky. Neither France nor Italy looked unbeatable so I expect England to bring home the Pannini Cup.

Good point on breakdown dummy_half, and I agree - meant to put that in (and it what I was aiming for in "improve discipline") - but as you say, it's hard to form a firm judgement with Lacey being a bit random in his interpretation.

The points about carrying and back row balance are well made. The reason I want more gametime for Clifford and George is to address this. George can certainly carry. Clifford is faster than either Haskell or Robshaw (in foot and in Haskell's case, mind), and offers variation in carrying - he's not short of power but he's also got acceleration and a step.

I don't think we need to be comfortably ahead to try them. In fact, either or both of them could be momentum changers. If we are grinding it out but on the front foot, by all means keep the starters on. If we're under pressure, we might need to try something new. We can't rely on Parisse to implode two weeks in a row.

But are you sure that Clifford can do the dog that is necessary in test matches? I'm not certain he can so why rush him in over Haskell who we know can. Its an unnecessary gamble if you a looking for a 'must win' game. That's why I say bring him on if the scoreline is comfortable.

He was named on the bench so Jones must think he can.

I agree, there's no rush for Clifford. He's not looking amazing when he comes on so just keep giving him bench time. Same with Itoje, I'd like to see him from the bench at some point.

I take back all I said about not risking Clifford. I've just re watched the first half particularly focusing on Robshaw. He did nothing almost any half fit 6 wouldn't do from any league in the land let alone the AP. He was virtually anonymous. Defo not worth his place on that evidence. I would go with Haskell and Clifford. Haskell was pretty evident throughout the match. That's more than you can say for Robshaw.

On Jones as England coach: I think he is going to really really enjoy the English arrogance thing. No England coach player or supporter could have said anything about beating Italy. A week out Jones is talking about thrashing them.

This is going to get interesting.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I agree, there's no rush for Clifford. He's not looking amazing when he comes on so just keep giving him bench time. Same with Itoje, I'd like to see him from the bench at some point.

I agree there is no rush for any of the younger bench players.  But we do need to see what they can do.  There will be a time and place for each of them during the 6 Nations, I am sure.

My bigger concerns are about the senior/established players who are not performing so well.   After the Italy match we will have a better idea.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I agree, there's no rush for Clifford. He's not looking amazing when he comes on so just keep giving him bench time. Same with Itoje, I'd like to see him from the bench at some point.

He had, what, 6 minutes? He made one carry for several yards through heavy traffic and was in the right support position for every other play I saw him in. Can't do much more than that in the limited time available.

Clifford had 11mins.

As I said, he didn't do anything amazing, he just looked OK which is fine given the amount of time he had. He done nothing to suggest he should start, he should perhaps be given a bit longer from the bench against Italy.

Sgt Pooly what did you expect Clifford to do? Score a couple of tries, make a few turnovers and perhaps make more tackles than the rest of the backrowers combined?

A player cannot prove themselves if given scraps of gametime. Need more.

doctor grey if you don't try out new players vs Italy or Scotland then when do you?

I know that some posters think France away is a great time... but I disagree.

As for George he got barely any time either as expected sadly. The same old unproven argument will be thrown at him till England actually grow some balls and give him some decent game time. Probably that will only happen if Hartley get injured.

I didn't expect him to do anything really. He came on and did ok, thats fine. If he'd have came on and had an absolute storming 10min it would have been hard to ignore him. Truth is, this rarely happens.

Give him more time from the bench to see whats he made of.

I think it's as soon as a coach thinks you're ready. The French coach thought it was ok to make whole sale changes against Italy, nearly cost them. All about balance, judgement calls. Doesn't matter if it's France, Italy, NZ home or away as long as the players are good enough.

Totally, no need to rush players in. We've got them involved in the squad, introduce them into a winning side first. The only place we need to really worry is 12 I think.

Well we've just won so...

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well we've just won so...

We have to change everything?

Italy will be tough (always tougher that you think - and they did score those tries against us last year) but we will beat them

No we don't but I'd bring Mako in at loosehead to give him a chance against a fresh front row to show what he can do and Clifford in at 7 with haskell moving across, Itoje replacing Lawes and daly replacing Goode.

Am I the only one thinking we are at risk of paying too much respect to Italy. Sure they almost beat france, but that was, by all accounts, a woeful French display.

The French were awful, very disjointed with no direction from the halfbacks. Even their front 5 got outplayed.

Sgt Pooly you say it's rushing. It's really not. England's development rate is generally so slow that a snail could outpace it compared to other countries. I know you'll say but we have lots of depth. England need some fresh impetus. I am not suggesting that Eddie makes numerous changes vs Italy but I do still feel that some tweaking is necessary. Eddie has the luxury of being able to put strong impact players on the bench.

I believe in a squad mentality - need to be comfortable with not just the first choice but the 2nd and possibly even the 3rd. It's squads that win championships because there is no guarantee all your first teamers will be fully fit all the time.

no 7 & 1/2 it didn't cost them though and they'll learn from the experience. Of course starting new players is risky and sometimes it backfires. We know this but if it pays off then you can improve. Lancaster's risk on Nowell failed in the short term but in the long term it's paid dividends. Nowell is a much improved player these days. Still find it bizarre that Nowell was not trusted in the RWC by Lancaster.

What was practically the 1st thing you posted after the Scotland game beshocked? Something about the team won but we'll never know what would have happened if the newbies had got a game wasn't it? If someone other than nowell played we may have lost be 40 points; given the other players in line at that time it's doubtful they'd ahve played better, and afterall when Nowell went off England were winning.

May was just in better form going into the WC something you're now saying is an important factor?

Italy have just pushed France hard away from home, they've pushed England hard in previous years. If the players are deemed good enough they'll get a chance but just because this team has a name of 'Italy' doesn't mean they ain't more than capable of turning us over. I agree with LT we shouldn't be going there afraid but we shouldn't be thinking it'll be a walk in the park.

Beshocked, that makes absolutely no sense....again.

Engalnd's development rate is not slow at all. I'm pretty sure we've got the youngest squad in the 6N.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Beshocked, that makes absolutely no sense....again.

Engalnd's development rate is not slow at all. I'm pretty sure we've got the youngest squad in the 6N.

+ 1

Youngest squad at the RWC too. Things may change with EJ (and should because the core of the squad is there) but Lancaster did blood a lot of new players. Beshocked does have interesting things to say but I'd pay more attention if he was remotely consistent with his reasoning for all players and didn't just cherry pick arguments

no 7 & 1/2 it's true because youngsters can give a side fresh impetus instead of the same old stodginess we are used to.

You think we'd have lost to Scotland by 40 points with him off the pitch? Nowell was good but he wasn't that good! Neither are Scotland that good!

Nowell was playing well going up to the RWC, May got the nod because he was allegedly world class in training. It made no sense to drop Nowell who had a good 2015 6 nations for someone who was dropped for having a poor 6 nations.

Build up Italy if you want, make them out to be world beaters. The reality is that they've never beaten England and got given a severe hammering in their last two meetings.

I agree England shouldn't be complacent but then again they shouldn't be afraid. Shouldn't be conservative in selection.

Sgt Pooly Makes no sense? Perhaps to you no. For some players they have to wait quite a long time to get an opportunity at international level and unjustiably so.

England haven't been able to solve the 12 and 7 issue in years. You think that's great development? England aren't world beaters but you would think that the lack of fresh blood at TH,HK,7 and 12 that we are.


lostinwales age of squad doesn't tell you everything. England had a young squad but still couldn't find a 12, couldn't sort out the openside. Didn't want to try out another hooker bar T.Youngs. Didn't give the right players game time in the RWC warm ups.

Calm down fellas calm down -- Eddie is on board, give it time - you should be in 7th heaven now. He's gonna play to your strengths and evolve the side with a bit of attitude. You boys want it too quickly - give it time and if that fails just listen to Geordie, your voice of reason on here. 7th heaven I tell yer
Of course if you want an informed objective view, just let me know

We could well have beshocked as you said after Scotland we'll never know. He did bring down a rampaging Picamoles something I doubt other wingers could have. If you feel you have to base debutants on the name of the club or nation you're facing rather than making an informed decision it's your imperative, we have done this to death. Italy have never beaten us so that clearly means they never can.

May played better than Nowell going into the WC, Lancaster and his coaches made the call, it is afterall a squad game not just the first 15.

no 7 & 1/2

I just think it shows inconsistency - backing a young player to the hilt - throwing him in against France away. Then a year later when he's actually playing well, dropping him for someone who had a poor 6 nations.

It is a squad game. Something you don't understand. Lancaster made the call and got it wrong on both occasions. Lancaster's usage of the bench was poor.

A positive of Eddie Jones is that he seemed to use the bench better than Lancaster. Still could have given more gametime to certain players but throwing on Mako in particular helped as shown by the try scored by Nowell.

Look I know you think Lancaster was a great coach, quite clearly he wasn't. He was simply mediocre. He got a bit unlucky at times but he got key decisions wrong and ultimately was the nearly man. Nearly won the grandlsam, nearly got out of a tough pool. The big games were lost. I wouldn't call him a bad coach but not up to the standard England needs.

Maybe Eddie is good enough,maybe he isn't. Still remains to be seen. I just want to see him being a bit riskier against Italy.

Of course Italy can beat England but you can't be frightened of every team. Can't be complacent but then again can't be too respectful.

England did pretty well – they got the win EJ felt he needed; no-one looked outstandingly weak and most combinations looked better than a lot predicted. But Eddie did nothing to address the 2 weaker areas in the team at BR and centre. 1st game, and away, and with a new coaching team, so fair enough. But we have to aspire to more than beating Scotland away, so he has to start dealing with these 2 areas sooner rather than later. SL spent too long in working out his preferred back-line, and look how that went. To me, although both would be nice, developing a side that that can compete with the likes of Aus and even SA as soon as possible is more important than a 6N championship. As for the immediate competition, well both Italy and France look very average to me – but we know this, they have been for some time.

So I want Eddie to try a little harder. More game time (or any game time) for Kvesic or Clifford, and Devoto. And nip down to Boots to get some Imodium for Joe Squits.

It would also be good to put more pressure on the opposition if we're to kick so much - we miss May's chasing game here.

He's backed May (still a young player himself) though, along with Watson (another youngster) who are pretty much interchangeable (which is what you've said you want). May was the most in form wonger we had going into the WC.

And you yet again make things up ie me thinking Lancaster was a great coach, you don't have to make stuff up to try and back yourself up.

I agree with your last thoughts but we also shouldn't be scared to give players a chance who may not be the most experienced against ireland, Wales, france, whoever. If the players are deemed good enough they should be given the chance (in the wider scheme of what is best for the team).

Why are punters so unhappy with a winning team? Eddie says is only goal is to win the next game. He's not interested in development. He will pick whoever he thinks will help us give Italy a good hiding. I don't think for one minute he would jeopardise that aim just to see how a few newbies stack up. Players will only get in if he is sure they can perform or there is no one else left.

Oh well, there goes the next RWC then

englandglory4ever wrote:Why are punters so unhappy with a winning team? Eddie says is only goal is to win the next game. He's not interested in development. He will pick whoever he thinks will help us give Italy a good hiding. I don't think for one minute he would jeopardise that aim just to see how a few newbies stack up. Players will only get in if he is sure they can perform or there is no one else left.

Exactly in a nutshell now calm down and look forward too the weekend

no 7 & 1/2

May has generally not been good for England.  Watson has been okay but I think there needs to be more from him. In form winger? May? You're kidding right?

England need to aspire to be better. It's a relief May is injured because it means that the superior Nowell is playing. I believe Nowell is a more complete player than on his debut which is a positive.

You haven't said that Lancaster is a great coach but your constant justifications of his poor decisions makes me think you believe he is.

It's more of a risk to put debutants vs stronger opposition than weaker ones because then at least they get some experience hopefully in a winning team.

Scotland and Italy are the weakest sides in the competition. Personally I think it's illogical to wait for the toughest games to throw in debutants but that's my opinion.

Maybe in specific circumstances, debutants have to be put in then but it's not something I like to see.

Oh and englandglory4ever I am not suggesting a ridiculous amount of changes for the Italy game.

Just tweaks that many other England fans want to see too.

May was the in form winger going into the WC. Did you actually watch any of the warm ups?

Rest assured then beshocked I don't think Lancaster is one of the greats of the game.

Scotland have a good team this year, italy have just pushed France again very close away from home. Could have very easily got something from the game. I would have no cause for concern should Itoje or Clifford or Daly be named in the team or on the bench for Ireland. I think they're ready now, we'll see what Jones, Borthwick and Gustard think shortly.

Lancaster was also unlucky, and luck is always an important trait (just ask Napoleon). He had a major failure of nerve at the RWC but thats another matter.

The 7 question under Lancaster depends a great deal on what you think of the current subject for hate, (mr. Robshaw) plus the current fashion for 'proper' open side flankers.

The 12 question is much more complicated, but has been done to death

no 7 & 1/2 yes I did but sadly May just hasn't delivered at international level in my opinion

Let's be honest Scotland were a bit overrated going into this game. Their players aren't as good as the Scots thought they were. Hardie was built up as if he was Richie Mccaw's slightly more talented cousin. Nel was portrayed as a scrummaging colossus who would tear the English scrum apart. Laidlaw as le petit general, Scotland's own rugby version of Napoleon who would mastermind a Scottish win which would have made both Austerlitz and Waterloo look like trivial events....

To be fair I exaggerate a bit but Scotland aren't as good a team as made out.

lostinwales I said Lancaster was a bit unlucky but he also made some poor key decisions.

Robshaw has been a consistent performer for England. Didn't have a good game against Scotland but I think it's the balance of the backrow which is wrong not necessarily Robshaw.

Robshaw-Haskell-Vunipola - good enough to beat Scotland but not world beating IMO.

Probably enough to beat Italy too but might come unravelled against stronger backrows like Ireland,Wales,Australia,NZ etc.

Depends what you expect from your wingers really. He's shown enough for me to think he'll be a good player for us. I suppose we'll see how Scotland go, I think they were overrated by some definitely. Even some England fans were putting us at 60 40 with the experienced side we picked.

One point I would like to make though is if Scotland and Italy are the weakest and we 'should' beat them what do we learn by giving George etc a game? We would come to Ireland with the same question mark; are they good enough.

No 7 & 1/2

I expect a winger to score tries, be strong finishers and get involved. Not let the opposition score tries. Sadly May in my opinion hasn't done enough of any of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonny_May

Made me laugh a lot. I should add I didn't write this. Just happened on it when I was looking for tries scored.

it would give them vital experience against weaker opposition before taking on tougher opposition. Game time is what a new player needs. A game vs Italy or Scotland is still of consequence but shouldn't be too tough. Helps build up confidence. Building towards a goal.

Ashton was/is the other real option though and he's been very poor in the scoring stakes for England after his initial spurt.

You'd still have the same perceived risks playing Ireland. Still the strp up, till the same decision maknig process; are the players good enough.

If Itoje doesn't get a game on Saturday should that be his last chance until the AIs? Not sure the weaker team we generally have for this though? Whether it be Tonga etc?

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 yes I did but sadly May just hasn't delivered at international level in my opinion

Let's be honest Scotland were a bit overrated going into this game. Their players aren't as good as the Scots thought they were. Hardie was built up as if he was Richie Mccaw's slightly more talented cousin. Nel was portrayed as a scrummaging colossus who would tear the English scrum apart.  Laidlaw as le petit general, Scotland's own rugby version of Napoleon who would mastermind a Scottish win which would have made both Austerlitz and Waterloo look like trivial events....

To be fair I exaggerate a bit but Scotland aren't as good a team as made out.

Why must you use gross exaggeration to try to get across your point? In the same way as accusing others of thinking Lancaster was world class when they clearly do not.

beshocked wrote:Robshaw-Haskell-Vunipola - good enough to beat Scotland but not world beating IMO.

Probably enough to beat Italy too but might come unravelled against stronger backrows like Ireland,Wales,Australia,NZ etc.

And by the same token they might not where other 6 Nations teams are concerned. No one is expecting EJ to have a team of world beaters after just one game, he needs to win games while seeing the strengths/weaknesses of the more experienced players first hand, then he will decide what needs changing.

I have a feeling he is looking for explosive players. Powerful dynamic players.

Hence - Haskell coming in, Clifford being mentioned etc. And Wood, Parling etc moving aside.

Hoonercat I use exaggeration to get over my point because sometimes other things like logic and evidence aren't effective on some posters. Not sure I ever said any poster thought Lancaster was world class, I did say that the staunchly defending of Lancaster's decisions gave me the impression that no 7 & 1/2 thought he was a great coach.

well they did unravel against Ireland last year.... Yes Eddie Jones needs to win games but England don't need to stand still to do that.

I want progress as you do. I want England to win as you do. I just personally want to see some tinkering. Change and progress shouldn't necessarily be seen as a bad thing.

I am not expecting a team of world beaters but on the other hand I want to see some fresh faces making a positive impact.

I think England-Italy is a great opportunity.

no 7 & 1/2 depends surely on different factors. Can't know a player is good enough unless you give them sufficient opportunities.

Problem is discussing possible reasons for anything gives you the impression I agree with said decisions. I'm all for giving players a chance when they're ready. If Itoje doesn't get a game on Saturday (yes I know you think that would be a big mistake), do you feel that the AIs should be the next opportunity or would you base the decision on whether you think he would perform in this 6Ns?

I think he's ready for international rugby but the harder the game he's put into the riskier it is.

Saw you deleted the funny May wiki page stuff, spoilsport. Could have left it on a little bit longer.

I don't actual change anything on Wiki, bit of a technophobe in most respects so don't bother signing up to stuff like that, youtube etc.

So he doesn't get a game this weekend, you'd still want him on th bench or start vs Ireland, Wales or France (away shudder)?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ashton was/is the other real option though and he's been very poor in the scoring stakes for England after his initial spurt.

You'd still have the same perceived risks playing Ireland. Still the strp up, till the same decision maknig process; are the players good enough.

Interestingly, Ashton's poor form for England (and subsequent banishment from the England squad) correlates to his move from Saints to Saracens.  
What did Saints do to develop him from a league player and make him so good?
What did Saracens do to ruin him?